AuthorTopic: Mitt Romney's halo (Read 112037 times)

I suppose you all know that registering to vote is mandatory in Australia, if one is an Australian citizen and over the age of 18.

If one doesn't vote in either a State or National election, one will be fined, unless one has a good excuse. During the last state elections in the State where I live in Australia, I was out of the country at the time. Shortly after returning to Australia I received a letter from the Electoral Office asking why I had not voted. I was given a deadline to reply, after which I would be fined, and also fined if my explanation wasn't acceptable.

Voter turnout in America is very bad. In the 2008 Presidential election, only about 58% of registered voters cast a vote. This percentage is much lower than here in Germany where almost 71% of registered voters cast a vote in the 2009 elections. I am not sure how many voters in each country were living or not.

I disagree. I do not see how it is creating an obstacle for millions of eligible voters most of whom probably already have an ID, even a photo ID of some sort that is recognized as being accepted.

Read, then look at your response again:

Quote

54 million eligible Americans are not registered to vote. More than 25% of the voting-age citizen population is not registered to vote. Among minority groups, this percentage is even higher - more than 30% for African Americans and more than 40% for Hispanics.

Quote

Laws restricting voter registration drives do not address any real “problems.” Some state lawmakers claim that these new laws protect against “fraud” and help voters by ensuring that their forms are submitted on time. The evidence shows that voter registration drives do not change the patterns of when and how voter registration forms are submitted, except by increasing the number of voters who register.

Quote from: Bryan Conner

So, I think that the protest against voter ID is a protest against a virtually non existing problem.

It's not about voter ID. That argument is only used as a smoke screen for the gullible.

Why would you want somebody to vote who's too stupid or too apathetic to go to the local library and get a free photo ID? The idea that increased voter turnout means participation by a more enlightened electorate is ridiculous. I'd like to see voting restricted to those who have at least a remote clue about their government and the issues at stake. In fact, when I'm President I'll pass a law that requires you to pass a small test before you're allowed to continue into the voting booth. The test will have one question on it: "Please name the branches of the United States government." You'll notice that the test didn't say "three branches." Most of the people without a photo ID don't even know that we have three branches. (And if you believe a US president can pass that law or any law, you're too stupid to vote.)

But when thinking about voter ID, consider this datum from the July 7 edition of "Commentary:" "100 percent. That’s the percentage of registered voters who voted at a number of Philadelphia voter precincts in the last several elections. Indeed, as Republicans in the state capital pointed out during the debate about the voter ID law, in many parts of Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, voter turnout in contested elections routinely exceeds 100 percent of registered voters." (emphasis added) (Yes, "Commentary" is a conservative pub, but if Jeremy and Slobodan can toss propaganda from the IMF at me, I think turnabout is fair play. Oh, I forgot, this isn't propaganda. You can look it up.)

I've been away for a couple days. Now I'll have to go back and take a further look at the stuff Jeremy and Slobodan posted while I was gone.

... when I'm President I'll pass a law that requires you to pass a small test before you're allowed to continue into the voting booth. The test will have one question on it: "Please name the branches of the United States government." ... (And if you believe a US president can pass that law or any law, you're too stupid to vote.)...

Hi Russ, welcome back! Hmmm... I do not know about voters, but I think I know at least one (quite recent) US president that probably couldn't pass your little test either... Nor some other equally simple life tests, like being able to handle pretzels safely

Russ, that came from the latest IMF Outlook (also, please note my bold):

"... IMF forecasts have been consistently too optimistic for countries that pursued large austerity programs. This suggests that tax hikes and spending cuts have been doing more damage to those economies than policymakers expected. (Conversely, countries that engaged in stimulus, such as Germany and Austria, did better than expected.)..."

But let's cut to the chase. Slobodan quotes from the latest IMF Outlook: ". . . countries that engaged in stimulus, such as Germany and Austria, did better than expected." My first question would be: "What does 'better' mean?" Does it mean unemployment was lower? Productivity rising faster? Prices stabilizing or dropping? A smaller number of people involved in government? More liberty for their people? My second question would be: "Did this 'study' control for other obvious variables, like the fact that both Germany and Austria have some of the highest savings rates in the world?"

I went through both articles Jeremy gave as references and all I could find was groaning and moaning about how bad the European economic situation is and predictions that it'll get worse. I agree with those predictions. I say again: Angela will lose her next election, Greece will go under and drop the Euro. The Euro will go down shortly thereafter. We're now on the brink of another recession, and neither US party is going to be able to prevent it, though one will exacerbate it.

Hi Russ, welcome back! Hmmm... I do not know about voters, but I think I know at least one (quite recent) US president that probably couldn't pass your little test either... Nor some other equally simple life tests, like being able to handle pretzels safely

Jeremy, I don't know where you got the idea that I think austerity is a plus. The idea that austerity can save Greece or Spain from their coming disaster is absurd. That's one of the IMF's problems. They seem to think that if Germany keeps pumping money into Greece and that if the Greeks save that money, somehow that's the equivalent of the Maya tossing a virgin or two into the cenote and that it'll bring on prosperity. You and the IMF seem to see everything in terms of money. Money's neither the problem nor the solution. To save Greece the Greeks are going to have to decide it's time to get back to work instead of lying back in the lounger with an ouzo or two. To do that they're going to have to get their government off their backs so they can get back to work. But it ain't gonna happen in the near future, and it ain't gonna happen soon enough to prevent an economic catastrophe. Just keep watching.

Right on, Russ! Great question! Humanity has been grappling with it ever since the dawn of the mankind. Great philosophers tried to answer it, though they undertook a simpler task, starting with "What does 'good' mean?"

In fact, when I'm President I'll pass a law that requires you to pass a small test before you're allowed to continue into the voting booth. The test will have one question on it: "Please name the branches of the United States government." You'll notice that the test didn't say "three branches." Most of the people without a photo ID don't even know that we have three branches. (And if you believe a US president can pass that law or any law, you're too stupid to vote.)

You're confusing education with the kind of indoctrination and training dished out in schools nowadays, Slobodan. But I wouldn't consider that test to require a graduate education to pass. On the other hand, looking at the recently documented inability of college seniors to answer questions like that, maybe I'm wrong.